Quote:
Originally Posted by ddaniels
Hey all, I just found this thread. It's very interesting to read just how different people's carb and calorie allottments are in maintenance. Although I know some of this is affected by age and activity level, I suspect genetics may play a bigger part than we sometimes allow. So, for those who are trying to maintain a weight that is within their genetic range, perhaps they can be a bit more relaxed about things. But maybe those who wish to maintain a little lower than their genetics have programmed them for will always need to be more vigilent? A speaker at a recent conference I was at said that weight is affected 85% by genetics and the rest by food, exercise, etc.
Also, I DON'T think "genetics" means that if everyone in our family is "fat" then we are destined to be "fat" as well, because families can be overweight because they have passed down a family culture of overeating, etc., not because they are all biologically programmed to be "fat."
So, I wonder if part of finding peace in mainteneance is making peace with living within our genetic range, even if it's not a range we prefer.
|
I agree with this view. I think my weight is on the extreme low end of what is genetically natural to me. It seems whenever I get down to the 112 range, I can stay here with reasonable comfort.
If I get lower than that, I experience much more profound symptoms of physiological distress. The weight I am now I can "tolerate" it and maintain it without a huge huge effort.
I think there is a difference between your genetic
comfort zone of weight, and your genetic
tolerance zone of weight. For me, my "tolerance" zone means maintaining the weight is realistically possible. My "comfort" zone means maintaining the weight is easy and comfortable and I have considerable wiggle room.
It's a difference of extremes. A physiologically tolerable weight is like an environment with just the bare minimums of oxygen, pressure, food, heat, water etc to sustain life. An intolerable weight is more like going out of the atmosphere or deep under water - you are deviating so far from normal environment that you just
can't do it.
A physiologically comfortable weight is more like conscious choice. It's like choosing to live at high altitude or a lower one which is a bit more hospitable.
It's more an issue of how much you prioritize indulging in food vs being lower weight, and far less of how you can just keep your body
working effectively (which is a question you really have to think about when you're talking about "tolerance" of weight)
I guess you could say the first "tolerable" weight is actually the extreme low end of your genetic range. However I think it should have special distinction because, such a weight cannot be maintained without considerable restrictive eating and focus on food. There is nothing "comfortable" about it. It is more appropriately called "tolerable" (possible, but not comfortable)
I do think there is wisdom in making peace with our range. I think in the long run if you accept your weight, you would find that much more enjoyable than being able to fit into 1s and 2s and 3s.